MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 120
626
« on: January 30, 2015, 14:53 »
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.
Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP.
But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.
What subject area do you need it for, Paulie?
Landscape/Cityscape If you shoot micro you may not need anything more than a camera phone these days.
627
« on: January 30, 2015, 14:35 »
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.
Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP. But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.
628
« on: January 28, 2015, 06:25 »
I can recommend Graph Paper Press WP themes combined with their Sell Media plug-in at https://graphpaperpress.com/.
I used it to build my site and it is possible to sell direct footage files up to 4K (over 1GB file-size) and make them instantly downloadable. Have a look at http://www.londontimelapse.co.uk.
How's Google like your site? I have a GPP/SM site too and only about 10% of the images have been indexed so I have almost no traffic. I've tried changing plugins for sitemap, SEO, and no improvement. I also have a Photodeck and Photoshelter site which both are indexed decently and get good traffic so I'm thinking Google may not like the Sell Media catalog.
629
« on: January 23, 2015, 10:25 »
Here's why there's some confusion. What is called Free Images http://www.freeimages.com/ now, was a Sister site to Stockxpert.
Just read some of the comments. Hey waitaminute. I thought free images didn't affect sales. 8. May 15, 2014 ELGraphics "Thanks! We will be using this on one of our upcoming daily email newsletters. God bless you! www.elijahlist.com" 7. Mar 29, 2014 ohtea "Photo will be used in a book  Thanks!" 6. Dec 4, 2013 legacy3600 "We will be using this photo in a sign language course. Thank you!" 5. May 26, 2013 hyxmedia "Will use it on letenkovnik.cz, thank you!"
630
« on: January 22, 2015, 11:43 »
So let's say that Google decides offering an opt-out doesn't make sense for their deal with DT and removes the option to opt-out. What then?
Either Google walks away or they negotiate a fair rate for the artists.
Don't forget - if everyone opts out DT will have no content to sell via their OTHER partners, so they lose more than the Google revenue.
This seems both pointless speculation and rather confused. Google can't remove the opt-out, only DT can do that. And if they do, it means you are either fully in or you have to leave the agency - iStock did something similar and even the most ferocious critics of Thinkstock quietly knuckled under and accepted their files being sent there.
I wouldn't call it pointless speculation. More like preemptive planning. Google is a giant used to getting their way. DT is a small fish. This joint deal clearly is lining someone's pockets at both Google and DT regardless of how negatively it affects contributors. So if Google doesn't like all of the opt-outs what do you think is going to happen? Right. They'll tell DT either to disable the opt-out or the money faucet gets turned off for DT.
631
« on: January 22, 2015, 08:06 »
So let's say that Google decides offering an opt-out doesn't make sense for their deal with DT and removes the option to opt-out. What then?
632
« on: January 22, 2015, 06:34 »
I wonder where the bottom is. The more announcements I see like this the more I think we're not even close.
633
« on: January 22, 2015, 06:20 »
I have three personal sites. Photodeck, Photoshelter and GPP Sell Media.
I'm GI/IS Exclusive so it's hard to say what revenue I would actually make if I wasn't locked in to Getty. But, I do get contacted regularly from the Photodeck site and occasionally from the Photoshelter site and both way more than pay for themselves. The Photodeck site does very well. The GPP site surprisingly gets almost no traffic and I'm pretty handy with Wordpress. Google doesn't seem to like the GPP Sell Media catalog.
The key difference I've found is that while volume is lower if you have the right content buyers are willing to pay more. Meaning, in micro you may get 100 downloads at $1 each where on your personal site you may get 1 download for $100. If your content is generic micro then you may not be able to get $100. If you have stuff like military or other unique/rare work you may be able to get $1000 a download. All depends on your work.
The really important part is Search Engine Optimization and marketing. If you put up a site and do little or no marketing or SEO then you can expect little or no sales. I've put a ton of work into my sites SEO. Working on it right now in fact.
And part of the problem is picking the right technology. Some website systems Google just doesn't like and no matter how much SEO you do you get no traffic. An example for me being the GPP Sell Media. Google loves Wordpress so I figured I'd get a ton of traffic using the WP/GPP Sell Media combo. Nope. It may be cheap but if I get no sales it's useless.
The bottom like is if you want results as good or better than agency sites you're going to need to treat it like a serious business and put the marketing effort in. Otherwise you probably won't even cover the costs of the website.
634
« on: January 20, 2015, 22:40 »
Hey everyone! I researched little bit. But ım gonna ask even so. How can ı be contributor in Gettyimages?
42
635
« on: January 20, 2015, 22:37 »
to me , the bottom line each month is the only thing that matters.
A lot of people focus on the bottom line and are noticing it continues to go down. Maybe there are other financial performance measures that we should also be concerned with.
636
« on: January 13, 2015, 07:29 »
(This is a repost of what I wrote in the other 2015 predictions thread which looks like it's dying, so I'll add it here:)
My prediction: the Wall will come down on more people than ever in 2015, making them so depressed about microstock that they will give up. This will include many hobbyists who earn just a few thousand a year, as well as some of the big contributors who earn (or once earned) six figures.
People will do the math and realize that they can no longer increase their own ports as quickly (by percentage) as the agencies can, making microstock a losing game once your port hits a certain size. There's just no way around this math. In my first few years, I was certain I could beat the Wall. I was going to work harder, achieve better quality, find better niches than anyone else. Oh, how deluded I was.
I'm predicting my own income will fall 20% or so, and my resolution is to find another income stream. For me, 2014 was the big wake-up call that microstock is not the reliable source of secondary income I hoped might carry me into retirement. That dream is long gone. 2015 will be the year I resolve to find another income source to get passionate about and reduce the time I waste on this unsustainable numbers game.
Good post. And at one time I was hoping this would be my retirement. Ain't happenin'. This whole thing started off with so much promise. I hit the wall too. Seems like most people need to increase their portfolios by 50-100% every year to see some growth or at least get the same revenue as the previous year. This is why it looks so promising to newbies. Because it's not hard to go from 100 images to 200 images in a year and have all kindsa BDEs, BMEs, and BYEs. But its not so easy after you're in it for a few years and need to increase your portfolio from 3,000 to 6,000 images in a year. I've been working on other income sources for the past couple of years. Experiment. There's life beyond stock.
637
« on: January 10, 2015, 16:18 »
I disagree. The big buyersad agenciesare starting to see the change in quality at Shutterstock and are more likely to sign on, leading to larger sales. I think that's a reason to offer contributors another subs tier, at least. Plus, it's just nice to reward the people who are helping your success. Especially when you're a billionaire.
If you're saying big buyers are seeing a positive change in quality and more ad agencies are signing on then you're proving my point. SS is growing the buyer base without incentives to contributors so they have no reason to give a financial incentive. Could they get more big buyers by offering contributors an incentive to produce more of the right content? Maybe, but my guess is they already ran the analysis on that and determined either the payoff or risk weren't worth it or they would have done it already.
Nice? He probably didn't become a billionaire by being nice or doing things out of the kindness of his heart. I'd guess quite the opposite. He offers no incentive and people love him. He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
The advantage for SS is that if some of the bigger players get fed up and say "no raise, I'm done, they just don't pay enough" the impact is minuscule, if any. For every one good contributor who throws in the towel there are 10 more good ones who will keep contributing. There is simply no risk to SS to leave commissions as is. Can they afford to give a raise? Probably. But the pressure from being a publicly traded company and maximizing profits goes 100% against a raise. I personally cannot see it happening. Also, generally speaking, microstock commissions aren't meant to allow us to make a living at micro stock today, so a 'cost of living' raise is no longer valid because it's not a working wage we get paid. I am frustrated like the rest, but in my mind I have settled on 38 cents.
I'm no longer settling for pennies or dollars.
638
« on: January 10, 2015, 16:12 »
He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
I can't quite manage a "bravo" for this guy, who's made a ton of money as a middleman by gaining control of a market and exploiting photographers around the world, grinding their margins to dust and causing many skilled and creative people to abandon the business. Yes there is some skill in evidence here, but also a very large component of being in the right place at the right time.
We don't have a 'buyer's market', or a 'seller's market'. What we have today is a 'middleman's market'. Somehow, I don't feel this represents the original dream of the internet and crowdsourcing increasing opportunities for everyone.
I look forward to a day when the photographic community finds ways to route around Shutterstock entirely. That will get a 'bravo' from me.
Business is a game. He's played it well. Not saying I'm a fan of his but he's a billionaire. I'm not. Good for him. He's doing something right. Nobody's forcing people to contribute so it seems an awful lot of people must be okay with being exploited. As far as right time, if that's true why has SS seen such huge success while the dozens of other sites never grew or died? That's a little more than timing and luck. And I totally agree with you about the middleman part. I'm tired of the way things are which is why I've been focusing on selling direct and through other channels.
639
« on: January 10, 2015, 10:33 »
I disagree. The big buyersad agenciesare starting to see the change in quality at Shutterstock and are more likely to sign on, leading to larger sales. I think that's a reason to offer contributors another subs tier, at least. Plus, it's just nice to reward the people who are helping your success. Especially when you're a billionaire.
If you're saying big buyers are seeing a positive change in quality and more ad agencies are signing on then you're proving my point. SS is growing the buyer base without incentives to contributors so they have no reason to give a financial incentive. Could they get more big buyers by offering contributors an incentive to produce more of the right content? Maybe, but my guess is they already ran the analysis on that and determined either the payoff or risk weren't worth it or they would have done it already. Nice? He probably didn't become a billionaire by being nice or doing things out of the kindness of his heart. I'd guess quite the opposite. He offers no incentive and people love him. He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
640
« on: January 10, 2015, 08:21 »
Performance rewards, and seniority; they are pretty standard in the corporate world. I don't see why they shouldn't happen for us, as we are still providing content for the corporation. Even better quality images than when we first started. You pay your dues, do your due diligence and should get rewarded; not screwed. That's usually how it goes, but unfortunately life isn't always that fair. I'm not saying we are being screwed, but it's not easy competing with all the content from other photographers and illustrators that is steadily flowing in. That's why I think those who have been backing the company the longest should get "a little something sweeter" for their loyalty and hard work. It's the least we could get... it's not like we don't have to pay for our own overpriced healthcare plans now, as independent contractors (or face a 2% yearly penalty on our income, by the govt.)
I would definitely be a lot more motivated to create more images, if there was a raise. When you sell thousands of licenses per month, those 3 to 5 cents extra per subscription sale really do help.
In the corporate world there are a limited amount of highly skilled people to fill a limited amount of positions. Incentives are used to try to keep good talent and improve finances. Shutterstock probably doesn't have a limited supply of skilled contributors. And they seem to be happy with their finances. They already have a bazillion images with millions more added monthly. If they offered an incentive to contributors to produce more images would those more images make them more money? I'd say probably not and the fact they haven't done anything to offer more benefits to contributors would support that. Most of their massive $30 million plus annual marketing spend goes toward attracting buyers. If you owned SS what would be your financial goal? Maybe to increase buyer spending while minimizing downloads that need to be paid to contributors? Maybe the goal is to have good enough content to continue attracting buyers but not so good of content that downloads increase? The only reason they would offer incentives to contributors is because of a financial problem. If sales are down, and the sales team is telling management that they're losing sales because corporate buyers are saying content sucks, you can bet suddenly they will start coming up with "contributor needs guides". If that doesn't work then they may offer financial incentives. But that's only to correct a financial problem. Also be careful of what you ask for. IS implemented a performance based model to reward higher performers who produced high quantities of saleable work and "motivate" the people who weren't producing saleable content. Redeemed Credits anyone? We see how well that worked. Especially when your performance is tied to how well the company's sales are doing. So SS doesn't seem to have any financial problems at the moment and they have no reason to offer a performance incentive. In fact it may not be a good sign if they start offering incentives because it could mean they're having sales problems.
641
« on: January 10, 2015, 07:47 »
My New Year predictions for the big four agencies are:-
All the big four agencies will increase there commission by a minimum of 15%.
Three of the top four agencies will overhaul there websites to include more data on who bought what and when, right down to the name and address of the buyer.
One of the agencies will give away shares in the company to there contributors.
Three of the top four agencies will Improve there algorithms so that the buyer finds what he wants on the first page.
Instant payments will be initiated so that all payments will be made within one hour of asking.

Back in the day they used to give each contributor a new sports car, a full bag of Hasselblad gear, and a trip to a tropical island. My New Year prediction will be that 2015 will be the year they finally find me and repossess the car and gear. I'm tired of running. Those were the good old days.
642
« on: January 07, 2015, 20:08 »
I'm changing my hope.
I hope to grow my direct sales so well that I no longer need to post in hope threads.
643
« on: January 05, 2015, 18:52 »
They have no reason to pay anybody more. They are making all the right moves for their company, investors, and destroying the competition. They get to work in a swanky ultra expensive NY office building and employees get all kinds of benefits. Execs are rolling in money.
All of this while they pay their contributors pennies per sale and contributors sing love songs about them. Why would they pay any more?
It really is a brilliant business model.
644
« on: January 05, 2015, 15:03 »
And this reflects the situation BEFORE the "relaunch", since when sales have tanked without any sign of sales transferring to PP - at least, not in my results.
Looking at my sales downloads of subscriptions are sharply increasing while regular sales are decreasing. I earn less per subscription download and am now earning 1/3-1/2 of what I used to after 9/14 for regular downloads. So subscription sales may actually be up for them. But that doesn't do me any good.
645
« on: January 05, 2015, 13:32 »
They reference Shutterstock and Fotolia for Midstock so looks like Microstock = Midstock to them. And it sounds like they refer to Macro as Premium.
After reading that report it sounds like Istock is taking a severe beating and isn't doing well. Revenue is down, they aren't effectively competing with SS or FT which are both seeing growth, and it's unclear on if the Sept 2014 "relaunch" will make IS competitive again.
Reading this just confirms what I'm already seeing. Their sales are dropping. My earnings are tanking. They're in a downward spiral and the Sept 2014 changes were a major attempt to stop the nosedive.
What's really perplexing is increased operating costs such as with personnel. How could this have happened? Seems like they cut a ton of people and are operating on a skeleton crew. How did costs increase? Big raises to execs?
646
« on: January 04, 2015, 12:13 »
Thanks for posting. Stuff like this always valuable to me.
Do you see any of the stock sites as being in decline? Like maybe content is getting outdated, technology problems, etc. Or maybe you're just getting unhappy with them?
647
« on: January 03, 2015, 16:16 »
I'm now starting to remove my higher value images and will move them to macro.
Does the Exclusive contract allow that or are you quitting Exclusive ?
It does, if the macro is RM. The issue with some macros is if they would accept files as RM which had previously sold as RF. If they hadn't sold, it wouldn't be an issue.
Macro RF, not RM.
648
« on: January 03, 2015, 13:37 »
I havent had a download yet this year, so the indies are not being favored.
I've had two downloads so far this year. Trust is more important than money. If the customers feel the brand cant be trusted, they will go elsewhere. Same for contributors.
Sometimes but I'd disagree. People will put up with a lot of mistrust if the money is right. If a contributor is making $5,000 per month and getting treated like dirt very few people would walk away. And that's what IS used to their advantage and leveraged benefits away from contributors. They knew they could make whatever changes they wanted and their top producers and their great images were locked in. Same for buyers. If they're getting excellent content for good prices they will put up with a lot of mistrust and poor treatment. But when earnings collapse and/or prices massively increase there's no longer a reason to put up with the poor treatment.
649
« on: January 03, 2015, 13:12 »
I'm now starting to remove my higher value images and will move them to macro.
Does the Exclusive contract allow that or are you quitting Exclusive ?
Not sure. But from a financial standpoint if they don't allow me to do this I will have no option but to drop exclusivity.
650
« on: January 03, 2015, 12:59 »
Not dead yet but they seem to be quickly headed in that direction. This latest bandaid they applied to the severed artery may have slowed the external bleeding but the internal bleeding felt by contributors seems to be severe.
And this will only get worse as contributors stop uploading or remove images because their sales have collapsed. IS will be left with an ever increasing amount of generic, outdated, and irrelevant images which buyers won't want to pay for. They will then need to decrease prices further. Contributors will make even less and continue to leave. This will continue until there aren't enough buyers buying or contributors contributing to turn a profit and that will be the end.
A few years ago when they started squeezing contributors I said eventually enough contributors would leave that it would hurt them financially and they would need to reverse the process and start giving benefits back. They already started to do that this year. The problem now is that prices have massively dropped over the past couple years and they may be in a bad situation where they can't afford to give contributors back anything and are watching their revenue freefall. It may be a downward spiral from which there is no way to recover.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|